Why Does Bush Go "Nucular"?
By Kate TaylorPosted Wednesday, Sept. 18, 2002, at 6:29 PM ETWhen speaking about nuclear weapons, George W. Bush invariably pronounces the word "nucular." Is this an acceptable pronunciation?
Not really. Changing "nu-clee-ar" into "nu-cu-lar" is an example of what linguists call metathesis, which is the switching of two adjacent sounds. (Think of it this way: "nook le yer" becomes "nook ye ler.") This switching is common in English pronunciation; you might pronounce "iron" as "eye yern" rather than "eye ron." Why do people do it? One reason, offered in a usage note in the American Heritage Dictionary, is that the "ular" ending is extremely common in English, and much more common than "lear." Consider particular, circular, spectacular, and many science-related words like molecular, ocular, muscular.
Bush isn't the only American president to lose the "nucular" war. In his "On Language" column in the New York Times Magazine in May 2001, William Safire lamented that, besides Bush, at least three other presidents—Eisenhower, Carter, and Clinton—have mangled the word.
In fact, Bush's usage is so common that it appears in at least one dictionary. Merriam-Webster's, by far the most liberal dictionary, includes the pronunciation, though with a note identifying it as "a pronunciation variant that occurs in educated speech but that is considered by some to be questionable or unacceptable." A 1961 Merriam-Webster's edition was the first to include "nucular"; the editors received so many indignant letters that they added a usage note in the 1983 version, pointing out its "widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president." They even noted its prominence among "British and Canadian speakers."
These days, Merriam-Webster's sends every reader who fusses about "nucular" a defensive, 400-word response letter. Click here to read it.
Next question?
Explainer thanks Joseph Pickett, editor of the American Heritage Dictionary; Joshua Guenter, pronunciation editor at Merriam-Webster; Steven Pinker of MIT; and Bryan A. Garner, author of A Dictionary of Modern American Usage.
Kate Taylor is the arts reporter at the New York Sun
and the editor of an anthology of essays about anorexia, Going Hungry
, which will be published next spring. Notes From The Fray Editor:
A majority of posters thought the question wasn't worth the time (but, apparently, thought posting was). Some, like William Blake thought it was part of a pattern of Bush-bashing; mracmuth used it to do just that. LS thought it was an important issue (and staged a wonderful debate with Erin here). Elizabeth thought Webster was cutting people too much slack; AJA thought the same of Slate.
Remarks From The Fray:
People in the US should start supporting our president instead of nitpicking everything he says or does. I would hate to think we had anyone else but him as president at this time. Whats the difference how he says certain words, it all means the same. We have a lot of problems to be solved, and all this name calling, and petty things like someone pronouncing their words a little different from someone else, come on, is there not anything else you people have to do than to look for flaws in others ? Grow up!
-- William Blake
(To reply, click here.)
Webster's Dictionary explains President Bush's speech: Much, if not most, of what the President says, in both manner and substance, is "questionable and unacceptable".
-- mracmuth
(To reply, click here.)
I'm glad to see at least someone has the sense to post a commentary about an issue that drives most literate people crazy. The degree of literacy one appears to possess when speaking says a great deal about character, regardless of the accuracy of such an assumption. It's perception.
I've had so many friends and acquaintances who strive hard just to rid themselves of regional accents. Why? So they wouldn't sound "stupid" - their reason.
But accents are more forgivable, if forgiveness is indeed required at all. We're talking about articulation. Not knowing how to correctly pronounce a simple, commonly-used word, shows a complete disregard for accurate communication - and what that says, in effect, is, "I don't care if anyone understands my message". Only a real asshole - or moron - is that careless with language.
If one is being interviewed for a job, how likely are they to get it if they mispronounce simple terms? I axe you.
-- LS
(To reply, click here.)
I realize that Websters and many "educated" people use the term "Nucular" rather than "Nuclear" and feel that since they are who they are that it is correct. I understand what Websters is saying in regard to the English language, but I do feel that there should be a somewhat close correlation between the spelling and the pronunciation of a word. I cringe when I hear "idear", "eksetera", "pronounciation", "nucular", and on and on, no matter whose mouth these words are coming from. Because "etcetera" is pronounced "eksetera" does this mean it should be considered acceptable? Since "pronunciation" is related to the word "pronounce" does this mean it should be pronounced "pronounciation"? If our so-called educated elite don't speak well, how can we expect our children, the future of our country speak well. This seems to have been a problem for many years and I feel that Websters and others of that genre should begin to set a good example instead of using the excuse that educated people do it a certain way so it is okay. That does not make it right.
-- Elizabeth
(To reply, click here.)
The MISPRONUNCIATION of nuclear is like dragging fingernails on a chalkboard. "Slate" has merely made excuses for the "fingernail draggers".
-- AJA
(To reply, click here.)
(9/18)
What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUpon
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
Kaus: Seven Possible Theories Explaining Palin's Resignation
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons
Notes From The Fray Editor:
A majority of posters thought the question wasn't worth the time (but, apparently, thought posting was). Some, like William Blake thought it was part of a pattern of Bush-bashing; mracmuth used it to do just that. LS thought it was an important issue (and staged a wonderful debate with Erin here). Elizabeth thought Webster was cutting people too much slack; AJA thought the same of Slate.
Remarks From The Fray:
People in the US should start supporting our president instead of nitpicking everything he says or does. I would hate to think we had anyone else but him as president at this time. Whats the difference how he says certain words, it all means the same. We have a lot of problems to be solved, and all this name calling, and petty things like someone pronouncing their words a little different from someone else, come on, is there not anything else you people have to do than to look for flaws in others ? Grow up!
-- William Blake
(To reply, click here.)
Webster's Dictionary explains President Bush's speech: Much, if not most, of what the President says, in both manner and substance, is "questionable and unacceptable".
-- mracmuth
(To reply, click here.)
I'm glad to see at least someone has the sense to post a commentary about an issue that drives most literate people crazy. The degree of literacy one appears to possess when speaking says a great deal about character, regardless of the accuracy of such an assumption. It's perception.
I've had so many friends and acquaintances who strive hard just to rid themselves of regional accents. Why? So they wouldn't sound "stupid" - their reason.
But accents are more forgivable, if forgiveness is indeed required at all. We're talking about articulation. Not knowing how to correctly pronounce a simple, commonly-used word, shows a complete disregard for accurate communication - and what that says, in effect, is, "I don't care if anyone understands my message". Only a real asshole - or moron - is that careless with language.
If one is being interviewed for a job, how likely are they to get it if they mispronounce simple terms? I axe you.
-- LS
(To reply, click here.)
I realize that Websters and many "educated" people use the term "Nucular" rather than "Nuclear" and feel that since they are who they are that it is correct. I understand what Websters is saying in regard to the English language, but I do feel that there should be a somewhat close correlation between the spelling and the pronunciation of a word. I cringe when I hear "idear", "eksetera", "pronounciation", "nucular", and on and on, no matter whose mouth these words are coming from. Because "etcetera" is pronounced "eksetera" does this mean it should be considered acceptable? Since "pronunciation" is related to the word "pronounce" does this mean it should be pronounced "pronounciation"? If our so-called educated elite don't speak well, how can we expect our children, the future of our country speak well. This seems to have been a problem for many years and I feel that Websters and others of that genre should begin to set a good example instead of using the excuse that educated people do it a certain way so it is okay. That does not make it right.
-- Elizabeth
(To reply, click here.)
The MISPRONUNCIATION of nuclear is like dragging fingernails on a chalkboard. "Slate" has merely made excuses for the "fingernail draggers".
-- AJA
(To reply, click here.)
(9/18)